Archived: Wollaston Surgery

Updated 19 February 2015

Wollaston Surgery provides a range of primary medical services for people of Wollaston in Northamptonshire. The practice serves a population of 4800. This is a rural practice and the population is predominantly White British.

Clinical staff at this practice includes two GP partners and two nurses. The team is supported by a practice manager, three reception staff and a Medical Secretary. A health visitor midwife and a district nurse also support the practice.

Out of hours care when the practice was closed was through the NHS 111 service.

Updated 19 February 2015

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced inspection of Wollaston Surgery on 23 October 2014. Wollaston Surgery is a registered location of the provider Dr Marathe and Partner. This provider has one other registered location, Brookside Medical Centre which we did not inspect at this time.

This was a comprehensive inspection. Wollaston Surgery achieved an overall rating of good. This was based on all of the five domains and six population groups we looked at achieving the same good rating.

Our key findings were as follows:

• Patients were satisfied with the service and felt they were treated with dignity, care and respect.

• Systems were in place to maintain the appropriate standards of cleanliness and protect people from the risks of infection. The practice was clean.

• Patients spoke positively about the system to access a GP without making an appointment.

• The practice had a process to ensure best practice was followed. This helped ensure people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes.

There are also areas of practice where the provider needs to make improvements.

In particular the provider should:

• Have a written record of discussions at staff meetings

• Have a system to clearly identify staff training needs and record training which has been completed

• Assess the safeguarding training needs for non clinical staff

• Have policies and processes which reflect and comply with the requirements of legislation and directives

• Complete any outstanding actions arising from risk assessments

• Confirm clinical supervision and appraisal arrangements for staff

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 19 February 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of people with long-term conditions. There were emergency processes in place and referrals were made for patients whose health deteriorated suddenly. Longer appointments and home visits were available when needed. All these patients had a named GP and a structured annual review to check that their health and medication needs were being met. For those people with the most complex needs, the named GP worked with relevant health and care professionals to deliver a multidisciplinary package of care.

Updated 19 February 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of families, children and young people. There were systems in place to identify and follow up children living in disadvantaged circumstances and who were at risk, for example, children and young people who had a high number of A&E attendances. Immunisation rates were relatively high for all standard childhood immunisations. Patients told us that children and young people were treated in an age-appropriate way and were recognised as individuals, and we saw evidence to confirm this. Appointments were available outside of school hours and the premises were suitable for children and babies. We saw good examples of joint working with midwives, health visitors and school nurses. Emergency processes were in place and referrals were made for children and pregnant women whose health deteriorated suddenly.

Updated 19 February 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of older people. Nationally reported data showed that outcomes for patients were good for conditions commonly found in older people. The practice offered proactive, personalised care to meet the needs of the older people in its population and had a range of enhanced services, for example, in dementia and end of life care. It was responsive to the needs of older people, and offered home visits and rapid access appointments for those with enhanced needs.

Updated 19 February 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of working-age people (including those recently retired and students). The needs of the working age population, those recently retired and students had been identified and the practice had adjusted the services it offered to ensure these were accessible, flexible and offered continuity of care. The practice was proactive in offering online services as well as a full range of health promotion and screening that reflects the needs for this age group.

Updated 19 February 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia). The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of people experiencing poor mental health, including those with dementia. It carried out advance care planning for patients with dementia.

The practice had supported patients experiencing poor mental health about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations including MIND. It had a system in place to follow up patients who had attended accident and emergency (A&E) where they may have been experiencing poor mental health. Staff had received training on how to care for people with mental health needs and dementia.

Updated 19 February 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of people whose circumstances may make them vulnerable. The practice held a register of patients living in vulnerable circumstances including those with a learning disability. It had carried out annual health checks for people with a learning disability.

The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of vulnerable people. It had told vulnerable patients about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations. Staff knew how to recognise signs of abuse in vulnerable adults and children. Staff were aware of their responsibilities regarding information sharing, documentation of safeguarding concerns and how to contact relevant agencies in normal working hours and out of hours.